Timcast IRL - Liberal Judge INDICTED For Aiding Illegal Immigrants, Grand Jury Brings Formal Charges w/ Kaizen Asiedu

Episode Date: May 14, 2025

Tim, Phil, & Elaad are joined by Kaizen Asiedu to discuss a grand jury indicting a liberal judge accused of aiding an illegal immigrant evade ICE, a federal judge ruling that the Trump administration can resume using the Alien Enemies Act, a former NYC Democrat explaining why he abandoned the left, and CNN saying White South Africans should go back to Europe.   Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Elaad @ElaadEliahu (X) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Kaizen Asiedu @thatsKAIZEN (X)

Judge Hannah C. Dugan, who aided, allegedly, a criminal alien escaping from the courtroom as ICE was trying to arrest the individual, has been indicted by a grand jury. So all of these liberals and Democrats who are apoplectic, claiming that this was unjust, that Trump was going after judges, that she was doing the right thing, well, the grand jury disagreed and they've returned an indictment. So we may actually see some strong movements here. We have some other really big news. Donald Trump's administration has filed an appeal

pertaining to his deportation under alien enemies. He's not arguing, however, the administration isn't just arguing that they should have a right to deport. They're arguing that these universal injunctions are unconstitutional, finally. So that's gonna be big. And then, ladies and gentlemen, I don't that's going to be big. And then,

ladies and gentlemen, you know, I don't know how much people actually care about Joe Biden, but according to that book from Jake Tapper, I think Alex Thompson, I think the guys were they're saying that it was actually discussed by the doctor, by Biden's doctor, that his spine was degenerated to the point where he would need to use a wheelchair. Indeed. And they knew this and they lied. And Jake Tapper, of all people, is acting like he's shocked by this information. Meanwhile, literally anybody with eyes to see was like, yeah, Joe Biden was ill. So now he's trying to pander and sell his book. We'll talk about that. There's a lot of news today. We'll talk a bit about a Bud Light. Want to start manufacturing in the United States? We'll see if that can save them.

I'm not convinced it will. Before we get started, my friends, we've got a great sponsor. It is Home Title Lock. My friends, go to hometitlelock.com now and use promo code Tim. If you're a homeowner, you need to hear this. When's the last time you checked on your home title? That's illegal proof that you own your house. If you're like me, the answer is never.

Well, to be fair, because of these guys, I did. And I will tell you, too, I was actually really surprised when I bought my first house. How I was like, what's the proof that I own this? And they're like, it's a paper. Where? Somewhere. And I was like, for real? That kind of freaked me out.

The problem is, today's AI and cyber world scammers are stealing home titles and your equity is the target. How it works? Criminals forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay a small fee with your county, and boom, your home title has been transferred out of your name. Then they take out loans using your equity or even sell your property. You won't even know it's happened until you get a collection or foreclosure notice. That's why you need to stop what you're doing today and find out if you're already a victim.

Use promo code TIM at HomeTitleLock.com to make sure your title is still in your name. You'll also get a free title history report plus a free 14-day trial of their million-dollar

triple lock protection. That's 24-7 monitoring of your title, urgent alerts to any changes, and if fraud should happen, they'll spend up to $1 million to fix it. Again, HomeTitleL.com, promo code Tim.

Shout out. Really do appreciate you guys sponsoring the show. As always, we got cast brew coffee. Pick up some coffee if you haven't already. We got all these different ones. We got light roast. We got medium roast. We got dark roast.

We even got Sleepy Joe decaf. Appalachian Nights, of course, everybody's favorite. We got Ian's Graphene Dream, Luck of the Seamus, and Phil Labonte's Two Weeks Till Christmas. Get it. And last but not least, become a member of our Discord server. The Culture War Live event went off swimmingly. It was a lot of fun, and we're planning on expanding and doing more.

We want you guys to be members so you can join the debate on stage and be involved with the next event. And our plan for the next Culture War Live, of course, is going to be Lib V Con Trivia Night. We'll see if we can pull this one off because I'm willing to bet there's gonna be a lot of liberals who are like, I ain't doing trivia because either they have to admit they know they're lying

or get the question wrong. I know, I'm biased, I'm biased. Smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Kaizen Asiedu. What's up, Tim? How's it tim how's it going it's going great man who are you what do you do my name is kaizen i'm a political and cultural commentator people seem to like what i say and i guess we're gonna find out why all right well uh thanks for joining us it'd be fun thanks for having me a lot is here hey what's up everybody my name is a lot eliyahu i'm a journalist and

white house correspondent here at timcast. Kaizen, what's up? It's exciting to see you. Excited to get into it with you later today. Phil, how's it going? Hello, everybody. My name is Phil Labonte. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. I'm an anti-communist and counter-revolutionary. Let's get into it. I just want to add one more quick thing. I've got a special

treat for all of you for this uncensored portion of the show. So that's going to be at 10 o'clock rumble.com slash Tim cast IRL. Don't spoil it, Phil. But you can see Phil's very excited for this for this. It'd be great. Yeah, it's going to be fantastic. A special thing for you guys on the uncensored portion of the show. But for now, let's get into the news. We've got this from the New York Times. Wisconsin judge indicted on charges that she helped immigrants evade agents. Judge Hannah C. Dugan was accused of helping an undocumented immigrant elude federal agents who were waiting

to arrest him outside her courtroom. They say the Wisconsin judge arrested last month and accused of helping an undocumented, how about illegal immigrant? They say the indictment of Judge Hannah C. Dugan of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court was a routine but significant step in the DOJ's case against her. The Trump administration has defended the prosecution as a warning that no one is above the law. While many Democrats, lawyers and former judges have denounced it as an assault on the judiciary, Judge Dugan has been temporarily removed from the bench by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. While the case against her advances has indicated through a lawyer she intends to fight the charges,

she's expected to appear in court on Thursday. I gotta be honest, I do not see how she wins. Is she gonna deny that she did this? I mean, they've got cameras in the building, I assume. I'm just happy that she got arrested and actually indicted.

Like, this is progress. There was a time where this kind of behavior would be just brushed under the rug. You wouldn't hear about it, you know? Uh, and, and I don't think, I think those days are gone and it's a good thing for the United States. Take a look at this. We have the, uh, I believe we have the actual indictment here. United America V. Hannah C. Dugan. It says honor about April 18th, when 25 knowingly concealed EFR, a person whose arrest, a warrant and press had been issued under the provisions of law of the United States. We've got this other other paperwork. Yeah, the grand jury further charges that.

So what are they getting on? Did corruptly endeavor to influence, obstruct and impede the due and proper administration of the law under which a pending proceeding was being had before department and agency of the United States. We do have, I believe, a photo of the criminal alien who was trying to escape from the New York Post. And then, of course, this video of Hannah C. Dugan leaving the courtroom. But she does not give a statement. So, yeah, I have no idea how she thinks she's going to fight this. Is she going to argue I did the right thing and hope for a nullification? I mean, it's amazing how in this article they're positioning this as this being some sort of prejudicial indictment of Dugan. When if we actually look at what she did, it's pretty straightforward. There was an illegal immigrant in a courtroom.

She allowed him to exit through the non-public jury entrance. He tried to run. He literally tried to run away. And then he got tackled after he tried to escape at her assistance. So this is not political. And I don't see why it needs to be politicized at all. This is not even about a judge doing this. It's about a human being trying to help another human being escape arrest. The fact that the news has centered on her being a judge shows that Democrats expect certain people to be above the law. It's outrageous too, because I feel like Democrats were reliably telling me for a while that nobody was above the law. And I think it's weird that they're calling it an attack on the judiciary, because again, if judges break the law, there's no reason that they shouldn't be able to be arrested for their crimes however i'm sure she knows a lot

of good lawyers uh seeing that she is a judge so um she might be able to wiggle her way out of this one i think they're just counting on people not actually reading what she did and seeing hey this person trump i don't like trump trump did this thing to this person this person's the victim trump is the perpetrator. The end. So it's the third or there's probably more than three, but it's the third that I can recall immigration hoax that we're seeing so far in the Trump administration. First, we had the Maryland man hoax. Then we had the two children, American citizens being deported hoax. And now we have the Wisconsin judge hoax who is right. It's an attack on the judiciary. They didn't do anything wrong. There is going to be a political earthquake in this country in 10 years because we keep talking about these hoaxes, but who really falls for them? It is the older generation. They're watching CNN,

MSNBC, and you know, at least I'm watching Fox News. Fox is a pretty good job. Not perfect, but pretty good. In 10 years, when these boomers aren't voting anymore, or not to be crude, I know I say this a bit, but when they're passing on, and these cable networks and these corporate news outlets can't maintain these offices and these companies, the media narrative landscape is going to flip like a glacier. Just, it's going to be nuts, the political reckoning that we see. Overnight, these hoaxes will be gone. You know, and it's it's hard for me to blame the public for falling for some of these hoaxes, because for the average person, you don't have the time to dig in to every little nuance of every story. And you just reliably or think you can reliably read a headline without being misled. But it seems there is a consensus in the media to go along with so many of these immigration hoaxes. Do you guys think that this is the phenomenon

of so many people, you know, so many people being misled by the establishment media? Do you think that that's actually something new because of the digital age? Or do you think that it was just that because there are multiple outlets now? Yeah, I don't think there's any such thing as an objective news source.

I don't think there ever has been. All news sources are composed of humans. All humans have a perspective. You have a perspective. I have one. We're all subjective. And I think the difference now is because we have an open information environment,

we can actually compare what the open information environment is saying versus a single source, and we see the bias. I do think that when Trump arrived on the scene, it became even more polarized because I think the establishment found him so odious that they doubled down on their bias, especially in New York Times. I mean, I used to be on the left. And then my first realization was,

oh, wow, the New York Times exclusively reports negative things about Trump. That was the first window into, oh, I thought I'm getting the truth, but I'm getting a new story. I half agree. I want to push back a little bit because I've had this debate on subjectivity and objectivity quite a bit throughout the years in journalism. And I think the bigger question is not whether or not someone has a bias. You can be biased and objective. It just depends on your attachment to the particular story. And then the bigger question is, are you honest?

So what we often heard as an excuse for why the corporate press lies is that, well, there's no such thing as objectivity. Everybody has a point of view. Yes, but that doesn't mean you falsely frame the narrative of a story. So the way I describe to people is, you know, if I'm outside at a diner and I see two guys get into a brawl and someone comes up to me and says, what happened? I can be objective. I can say, this guy came into that guy and took a swing at him. But what if one of the guys was my brother? Right. I can still be honest, but you don't know. You don't know if you want to trust what I'm saying, because I'm going to be like that guy attacked my brother and they're going

to be like, OK, well, you know, we hear what you're saying. Maybe it's not the truth. Maybe he's being objective. I think the the bigger issue that we see in politics, the left is lying and the right is being honest. It's not perfect. Sometimes the right gets things wrong and some people on the right do lie. But it's a tendency on the left, or I should say it's a generality on the left and sometimes on the right. You'll find that there are right-wing grifters trying to make money and they're going to lie and they're going to make AI garbage and whatever they have to do to get money. On the left, it's every single day, every single day. So what's this? What's the distinction between left and the right in this country? It's not policy. It's not economics. It's not

abortion or gay rights. None of that matters because I can sit down with Charlie Kirk and have different views on legislating abortion, for instance, but we will be completely honest about the circumstances in this country and the facts. So can Charlie Kirk be objective? I believe he absolutely can. Can I? I think so, too. If we were presented with data and then we looked at it and said, we're going to scrutinize this data and it said 90 plus percent of abortions are no reason given elective, we will both agree on the terms that that is the true and correct fact. That's that's objective. Then we'll make an argument about our view and how we legislate to stop something like that from happening.

Whereas the liberals do is they'll crumple up. First, they'll ban you saying statistics are offensive, racist, sexist or otherwise. Then if somehow the information gets out, they'll make up an excuse as to why it's not really the case. They'll use manipulative phrases like Maryland man to trick you into thinking American citizens are being deported. That's not even a question of subjectivity, objectivity. That is just dishonesty. I, you want to finish? No, please go ahead. Okay. So I agree with you that right now the left is more detached from reality than the right. And I think the right piece is a higher premium on truth.

When I say that everyone is subjective, I don't necessarily mean that people are being dishonest, but the subjectivity gets in when we're talking about narratives and we're talking about what facts do we focus on? What stories do we focus on? It's a matter of prioritization. So for example, New York Times, I don't think they're fundamentally dishonest in their reporting of facts. Like, they pick facts that are true. They don't often say things that are literally untrue.

But it's a selection of facts from any set of data that actually creates a dishonesty that you're talking about. And for the New York Times, which presents itself as just objectively independently seeking the truth, they're misleading their readers. Because what they're actually doing is they're prosecuting a campaign against Trump, like they have been for the last 10 years and saying, we're just reporting the news, but they're not just reporting the news. They're reporting a story that they want you to buy into. So I think it happens both on the right and the left. I do think that the left seems more committed to prosecuting an agenda than the truth. So I think for them,

it's like, you know, there was this clip of this woman from NPR saying sometimes the truth gets in the way. And I actually think that was quite revealing

because to her, it's like, well, we need to do the moral thing even at the expense of the truth. And I think people on the right

tend to have a proclivity saying it needs to be the truth first and then morality after that. you go ahead that real quick that was an aoc quote as well yeah she said something about being morally right instead of factually correct do you think that part of the part of the situation or part of what we're going through today is that the left believes ridiculous things are the truth like

men can become women and women can become men and do you think it's that they believe just insane things well i mean i like to avoid broad categorizations of the left because you know there are reasonable people on the left and i think it's been co-opted by a fringe but yeah the people that you're talking about i think for them the the truth is subjective to them like they don't actually believe fundamentally in the idea of truth it's and that why you hear things like, your truth, my truth. There is no your truth or my truth. There's the truth.

But this worldview equates what you feel passionately about with the truth. And then as a result, yeah, a man is whatever a person feels like as a man. A woman is whatever a person feels like a woman. And it can change them. So I have a quick correction. That video we showed earlier, actually it was an old video that someone reposted,

just so people know. That was right after her first arrest, not the court appearance. So what was it? So you were talking about the way that you perceived the New York Times. What was it that kind of made you say, OK, I actually do have to stop considering myself on the left and I have to rethink my values? Because that's a big step. Yeah. So it was 2020. And I had been a subscriber to the New York Times for probably years at that point. And I was a default Democrat. I'm black. I grew up in New York, moved to LA, worked in tech. I was just in the tribe and I never really thought about it that much. I wasn't that politically engaged. And it wasn't that I disagreed with the reporting, but I noticed it's just pattern recognition. I noticed that literally every time I saw a headline about Trump in my inbox, it was negative. And I don't care who you are. If you're always being told negative things about a person, you're probably not getting the whole

truth because everyone has something positive to them. And that was the moment when I decided, okay, I'm just going to unsubscribe from the New York Times and disconnect from all this stuff. And then me getting back engaged in politics happened more recently. I wanted to follow up on something that we were talking about a little bit earlier with the dishonesty and lack of objectivity. I don't specifically think it's a left-right thing, although it might be more prevalent on the left. I think most people who are interested in politics aren't moderates, because if you're interested in it, you're likely to be on the right or the left. And they're like downstream consequences of that. And I don't think there's any lack of dishonesty or lack of objectivity on the right with like posting things that are

disingenuous. So for example, like recently I saw this video of, it was Emmanuel Macron with a little tissue on the table. And then everybody, everybody on Twitter was so quick to call this like a bag of, of some drug or something when it was really so obvious that it wasn't. But really, we have so many crazy, perverse incentives between social media and news journalism where people are driving. They want clicks. They want money. And that's really what sustains so many of these media companies. So I think we also need to understand those perverse incentives when because it really shows how different people with different partisan leanings are more willing to go along with things when they're obviously fake or wrong and and they're clearly being dishonest about it but willing to try to capitalize on it i just think that's something we should did you see that tissue stuff yeah of

course of course people were saying that it was coke it was a coke but it was a snot rag yeah it was the some of the dumbest thing and i think think I complained about this about the last time I was on, but I think a lot of the different influencers that advance this stuff actually have disdain for you. They think you're stupid and are trying to monetize as a result off of that. And it's disgusting and gross and making us worse as a society.

Do y'all remember? Oh, I do. Do you guys remember in Trump's first term when the White House intern was walking up to get the microphone from um what's his face the cnn guy costa costa fighting and he pulled his arm away from her liberals that i knew at the time because this is this is like 2018 or something so back before everyone went you know further and further down the polarization lanes uh i had a bunch of prominent liberals.

I'll leave them, I'll leave them unnamed, but big people with millions of subscribers. And they followed me and I followed them. And I posted the video and I'm like, clearly Jim Acosta has the mic in his hand. She's holding it and he jerks it towards him, away from her. And everyone was trying to claim that she with her hand under it

was pulling it down or something, which just made no sense. But there was no real way to know who pulled one way or the other. And Scott Adams was around the time was talking about one screen with two movies on it. So all the liberals were told, here's what happened. They watched it. They believed it. Everybody else was told something else happened. They watched it. They believed it. That has been consistently happening for a decade now. Do you guys ever see, there's this research they do

where a mouth will say fa or pa, and then depending on which sound they play, you will see their mouth making that noise. And then when they turn the sound off, you will read it as if it's one sound or the other. That, you know, we refer this uh recently as information vaccination uh ian's been calling ian called it this and it's a good it's a great point he says that often when a story comes out he immediately will contact his parents and give them the truth before they can the lie can reach

them because hearing the lie first will shape their perspective of the truth. That is to say, I believe it's fair to say, now this is a contentious example because honestly I don't know, that Jim Acosta was trying to, he was holding the mic, he was talking, he wouldn't shut up. They said, that's your time. She went to grab the mic from him and then he was yanking it from her as she was pulling it from him. I firmly believe that's true. But if this story, or you know, how about the very fine people hoax? This is a better example.

When I saw Trump give that speech, I listened to the whole thing and I said, OK. Then the media came out and they said he called Nazis fine people. And I went, no, he didn't. He said he condemned them. What's going on? But what happens if you're like shout out to Daniel Negreanu, the poker player who came on the show and explain the story. When he had first been told that Trump called Nazis fine people, he believed it. And then later when he saw the video, I've seen enough. Now, any time one of his buddies would be like, Trump never said that. He'd be like, I've seen the video and I heard it. I know it.

I know what I know. And he didn't want to hear anything further. And it wasn't until one dude that he knew put the phone on the table, slid over and said, watch and pressed play. And he went, OK. And then for the first time, he heard Trump say and not the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. So information, vaccination, getting the info to people before the media can lie about it and falsely frame it, because what's what's happening now, especially with the immigration stuff, the the members of Congress who have gotten or threatened with arrests for physically. You see this lady close fist punch an ICE officer in the arm. I mean, you can see

in the video she hits him in the arm. CNN's not showing that video. And she's going on TV saying that none of that ever happened. And there's no video of this anyway. So what happens now is the liberals are going to say there's no video. never happened if you go to them and say here's a video of them punching they'll be like i don't want to see it because you're a liar so you got to get in that information first yeah i don't know if information vaccine is the the best way to try to sell it to people but no i do for liberals especially okay yeah but not for conservatives yeah i don't know if the i don't know if r RFK Jr. would be a big fan of the information vaccine. He's the guy who's recommending the vaccine, by the way.

This is another hoax. The media was claiming RFK Jr. was anti-vax, and I'm like, we interviewed the guy. He's pro-vax, 100%. He was just like, we've got to get more rigorous studies on these vaccines, and he was recommending them. And then sure enough, a lot of people were surprised to find out that once he gets in at HHS,

he's like, I recommend everybody get the vaccine. And I'm like, yeah. To be fair, I think his rhetoric has become a lot more pro-vaccine, especially his recent comments on the MMR vaccine, where he's trying to encourage

more people to get it. Agreed. But during his campaigning, he was not saying anything. Like maybe he tried walking away from his past in the campaign. All I'm saying is during the campaign, he was not anti-vax. He was critical of how they rolled the COVID vaccine too

quickly. But general vaccines he was not opposed to. And the media kept saying he was they were just lying about it. Yeah. But anyway, let's let's let's jump to the next story here. Big news from the post-millennial federal judge rules Trump admin can use the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrant gang members. The court now leaves it to the political branches of government and ultimately to the people who elect those individuals to decide whether the laws and those executing them, executing them continue to reflect their will. So this is a tremendous victory for Trump. It had been stayed effectively. But now Trump is clear to use the AEA to begin deporting. So what's what's the argument now? Why? Why? Why can't Trump do what he does? How is what he what he people have is not so much whether the executive can do this, but whether he should do this.

Right. Because if you look at the Alien Enemies Act, it specifically contemplates the idea of war or an invasion by some sort of national adversary as a reasons to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, not just because you want to get illegal immigrants out of the country. Now, I would counter that the way that Trump is looking at this is, okay, Trenderagua and some of these gangs, they're actually sponsored by the Venezuelan government and Maduro. So that would be the reason why he calls it an invasion. But they don't have to be governmental. The Alien Enemies Act covers any organized group. Any organized group, but it's like a nation sponsored one. So it's an interpretive act at the end of the day. And the concern is how he is choosing to interpret. That said, I think it's healthy to just say, hey, this is actually not the role of the

judiciary to decide what the interpretation, the executive branch applies to acts like this should be. Because if we do that, then what we have is a bunch of unelected judges deciding what the executive branch's policy should be. And that's just not sustainable, whether you like the executive branch or not. And the check on the executive branch is supposed to be voting, not judges blocking everything that they do because of policy disagreements. So I think there's a healthy check on the judiciary and we have it.

It's long overdue. I think that the laws in our country have been abused for so long. So, for example, illegal aliens have been abusing our laws and abusing our ways of deporting them. Democrats have also been obstructing different laws in the way that we are trying to deport them. So I understand that you think that he's, or at least your argument is saying that he's kind of trying to push the bounds of what this law is saying to try to achieve his goals. But I don't blame him for doing that

given the current political climate and political situation that we're in right now. Illegal immigrants feel free to break the laws of our country. Our executive actions aren't deporting the immigrants such that we don't have the means to do it in our law system. So I think that's why he's resorting to different plans like this. And I mean, frankly, if the ends justify the means here, and this is an effective way of getting Trende Oroguar terrorists out of our country, then, you know, it is what it is.

Yeah, and I don't disagree. Again, I was proxying the opposite argument but yeah i think the concern is just that he keeps things legal because what happened is the democrats basically it was like a sin of omission right because they just didn't enforce the law which is essentially illegal to not enforce the law but it's much more abstract right because how do you address it and then there's cities on top of that so there's so many of these different workarounds where I guess laws don't matter if you're in New York City or LA yeah and I'm glad that he's actually

invoking the Alien Enemies Act specifically for violent gangs because that's the situation where you need to address this how is he doing this what am I missing here if it applies to nations we're at war with or hostile nations how is he applying it to terrorist organizations so I think the argument is that trender Aragua is state-sponsored gang, and he thinks that Maduro has... But we're not at war with Venezuela either. No, but we don't need to be at war.

It's only been invoked in times of war, but it also contemplates a national invasion where war is not actually declared. So that's... You know, obviously they went deep in the fucking annals here to find out what kind of clause could they use to deal with this situation. And it speaks to, as you said a lot, the fact that we have an environment that has been so disregarding of the law that now we're going back hundreds of years to find laws that we can use to enforce the law. It's ridiculous. Aliens Enemies Act of 1798. There's so many also different laws on our country's books that if you want to find a law that will help justify whatever political thing that you're trying to

achieve, I'm sure you could find it in the hundreds of years of history in our constitution. And then again, it feels as though so many different people in our political class aren't even following the laws. Okay. It isn't only nations. So that's why I was confused, because I thought that it could be any invasion. So it says, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America and Congress assembled, that whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion, shall be perpetrated,

attempt, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event. All native citizens, denizens, or subjects of hostile nations or government, being males of the age of 14 years upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. It is, let's see, it's interesting, I guess the interesting interpretation is it says, whenever there's a war or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated. I think the fact that it's the phrase or the wordage, you know, predatory invasion or. Yeah, that's really that really does classify what what's going on.

The federal government, you know, the Biden administration really just it just ignored the law. And it was such a dramatic consequence that you have to do something like this to solve the problem. There's no precedent to have that many people come into the United States in such a short amount of time and have no intention of assimilating to the lifestyle and the culture of the U.S. And I think it's important that the current administration do something to fix the damage that was done. It's so fascinating how we're kind of choosy with which laws we decide to enforce or not. It's also illegal in our country to employ illegal immigrants. I'm looking at the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. I don't think illegal immigrants are having any trouble actually finding legal business too,

because we want them on our farms to work there legally, as I understand. I actually asked Stephen Miller about this, and he said that, you know, we're actually going to, we're doing a lot of, we're doing a lot more white work site enforcement. But as far as I understand, you know, illegals can't work legally at companies, but there's still millions of illegals in our country working at these different companies, and we just choose not to enforce the law here. Sanctuary cities, we choose not to enforce the law here. I'm sure there's a ton of other things, not only on immigration here, but that's the fascinating thing. When it comes to stuff like employing illegal immigrants, we've talked about that here. If you

employ an illegal immigrant, you should lose your business. The federal government should absolutely just expropriate your property. If you've been found to knowingly and intentionally hire illegal immigrants because you're trying to skirt tax law or whatever law,

the government should take your business from you. So just to clarify everything we've gone through, we were all correct. The arguments, as you were saying, Kaizen, is that these people are state-sponsored. Venezuela is effectively releasing them from the prisons and then sending them our way, which constitutes an incursion or predatory invasion. It doesn't need to be that we are declared at war with Venezuela, just that Venezuela is sponsoring an incursion or predatory invasion, which Trump has declared.

And that's why the court has ruled this does align with the Alien Enemies Act. I think also part of what the Trump administration is trying to achieve here is actually a little bit of fear in those who are considering making the trip to immigrate here illegally. So that's why he wants to show like, you might, if you come here, you're a gangster, you come here illegally and break the law, you might be sent to a different prison in El Salvador, a brutal prison, if you're willing to do those illegal actions in our country. Part of the reason why we should come down on businesses is because we want people that are here illegally to leave of their own volition.

Because it's difficult to do all of the due process stuff that we're supposed to do. Even just having everybody go through the you know, the normal administration, administrative process is a ton of manpower and a ton of time. The more difficult you make it for people to stay here illegally, the better it is for the country because you don't have to have jackboot thugs, which is one of the things the left is terrified of. If you make it exceedingly difficult for illegal immigrants to stay here, to work here, just to do their day-to-day business of their life here.

Have them leave of their own volition. That's way better for America. And it's better for the illegal immigrants because then they don't have to get arrested. Then they don't have to get maybe roughed up from the cops. It's better for the communities that they live in because you don't have police going in and you know getting into interactions with the with the population because anytime the police get into interact interactions with the population there is the possibility of some kind of of tension possibly a crime you know possibly someone gets to a fight with the cops you don't want any of it just make it hard for them to be here because they go there on their own way well said and it's funny because basically what we're

saying is we just need to enforce the law and do so consistently. And I don't think anyone wants to see masked ICE stormtroopers busting into homes and kicking, screaming women and children out of their homes. You're shaking your head. Are they illegal or are they legal? Well, whether they're here legally or not, I don't want to see that happen to another human being. So rather than having to do this by force, and if we have 10 to 20 million people, it just doesn't scale. Let's change the incentive model by enforcing the law properly so that people leave of their own accord. I don't know. Did you guys see that story about Trump promising $1,000 to anyone who self-deposed? Oh, yeah. Right? Yeah. Once you're gone and confirmed to be in your home nation,

they deposit $1,000. I love that. Now, $1 at your in your home nation, they deposit a thousand bucks. I love that. Now, a thousand dollars is probably not enough. But if it costs us seventeen thousand dollars to do this by force and it costs us less than seventeen thousand dollars to incentivize someone to just leave of their own accord on their own timing to a country of their choice. Let's do that so that we can have a situation where, yes, we're treating people humanely, and we're also sustaining the community that people want to come to, because the reason that they want to come here is because we enforce the law, and that's why America's great. We just got to make sure the border is very secure, lest they keep coming back to get $1,000.

And also, you know what? If you're in Peru, $1,000 is a whole lot more than $1,000 in the United States. Also true. Tyson, I wanted to ask, you said you were on the left before. When did the switch happen, and was there a certain something that happened that kind of initiated that switch? July 13th, 2024, the day that Trump almost got assassinated. Oh, wow. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So I had already- That's recent. That's very recent. Yeah. So I had been questioning what I'd been told about politics since the start of 2024, because that's when I

started to just pay attention. I had not been a political person at all. Have you ever voted before that? Yeah, I always voted, but I'd always been a Democrat by default. It was not really that conscious of a decision. And the first thing I noticed actually was when Trump got hit with the felony charge. And I saw how excited people were. And I also saw that people didn't know what they were excited about because no one actually knew what the felony was for. And when I actually looked into the case, I realized, okay, first of all,

this thing just doesn't sound like a felony to me. Just intuitively, him paying $100,000 to a porn star doesn't actually bother me ethically at all. And that seemed like pretty normal politics, like people get endorsements or they pay people to be on their side. And if he cheated on his wife, that's an ethical breach, but the act itself didn't bother me. I was like, why is this a felony to begin with? And I looked at the broader pattern of, it felt like for every single week, even after Trump was out of office, there was a new story about a subpoena or tax documents.

And then I thought, wait, the terminus of all of this is this? That's what he's getting hit with a felony for? Not all the things that you said he was doing in business? And then I started to realize, hey, people are being emotionally led rather than logically led. And they've already made up their mind about this guy. So they concluded everything that they hear about him that's negative is true. The second thing was i saw biden senile on the debate stage and it's like you know tim was talking earlier about honesty and subjectivity and objectivity it was just objectively true the guy was not well possessed of his mental faculties and it felt like i was being told not to believe my lying eyes when I saw that the guy was,

he's clearly early onset dementia or something. And then I realized, okay, I don't trust Trump yet, but I definitely don't trust the Democratic Party. I definitely don't trust these people who are telling me that our president is sharp as a tack. And I was just concerned, like, who is running the country then? Like, this guy is negotiating with world leaders? And then I was honestly still scared because I had so much conditioning.

And remember, like, on the left, believing that Trump should run the country equates you with being a bad person. Like, that's how deep it was. I was afraid of getting canceled by my community, my family, like, everyone. And then the day that he nearly got assassinated, I just felt my heart leap out of my chest. And I thought to myself, wow, that is the realest political moment I've ever seen. That was such a powerful moment. It was just real.

Like when he got up and he said, fight, fight, fight, I thought to myself, you can't fake that. Not even thought to myself, I felt it. And actually that was the first day that I recorded a video on the subject. It went viral and then my whole life changed after that. Can I ask, did you get pushback from your peers, family and community as a result of your support for President Trump? I know you're obviously

black. President Trump had a lot of different initiatives to try to get more support from the black community. He's more successful in doing it with black men than black women. Can you tell me a little bit more about, you know, the pushback you got in your community? And are you seeing more of them become Republican and Trump fans? Wait, I'm black? I think so. Yeah, of course, man. And it's not fun, right?

Because you want to be liked. Everyone likes to be liked. And also, I realized that it wasn't even about what I was saying. It was just about what people's beliefs were. And that's where the pushback was coming from. Because I wasn't shy about my opinions, obviously, because I shared them online. And at first I was scared, like, okay, what if I miss something? And he is a secret white supremacist, and he is trying to put us back in chains and all of this stuff. And consistently, the arguments that I saw were emotional arguments. They just

weren't very good. And I knew that I did my research. And actually, one of the interesting things is, I think this political awakening that I had, and many other people are having, is only possible now. Because with AI and social media and these tools, we can actually process a lot of information and process out the nonsense and get to the truth ourselves. Whereas before, we were reliant on these single points of failure in the media. So yeah, I got pushed back and I went through my own journey with it. But honestly, what I also saw was a lot of people come out of the woodwork and say, I'm so glad you're saying this because I was thinking it

and was afraid to say it. And that actually encouraged me to keep going. And yeah, I think in the black community, yeah, there's a lot of people who are just scared. And that's where it's coming from. It's just genuine fear. And I understand where it's coming from. But I'll remind people, before Trump got into politics, he was the man in every community. Black people loved him. He was friends with Nelson Mandela and Mike Tyson and Michael Jackson. And this whole Trump is a white supremacist thing was very new.

It only happened after he got into politics. So I just encourage people to like, look back in your memory banks and wonder, when did you start believing this stuff anyway? And why? Because if Trump didn't get into politics, I think he would still just be the apprentice guy, the picture of the American dream and someone that people looked up to like before. But has his efforts have been paying off in the black community, you think? It's tough, man. I think, unfortunately, no. Like, that would be my guess. And it's not because of what he's doing, but the way that everything gets positioned. Like, for instance, when we talk about DEI, anytime people think DEI, they think DEI pro-black people removing DEI anti-black people, when, of course, there's nuance to that. I think that a lot of these DEI anti-black people when of course there's nuance to that I think that a lot of these DEI policies have actually been harmful to black people I think this whole idea

of a DEI hire has come from black people being promoted because of the color of our skin that's not helpful for black people I think it's actually belittling I think it's disempowering to think I want to ask about something more specific than the DEI because in the way it manifests, because I wanted to have something tangible here, like affirmative action. So, for example, some black people have argued that it's actually harmful. I feel like Thomas Sowell's actually argued that. Who's the Supreme Court? Clarence Thomas actually wrote about this in his book that when he went to college and when he went to law school, he believed that everybody looked at him differently, he thought that everybody only thought he was there as a result of affirmative action. But others say that

no, black people were dispossessed and they actually needed this leg up and statistically couldn't compete as well and were underrepresented in a lot of these colleges and in positions of power and wealth. So like, do you understand those two arguments? And what do you think about the... Yeah. So I actually went to Harvard. I'm black. I'm also first generation. So I'm in this interesting position because a lot of the black people who are supposed to be getting help by these policies are not first generation immigrants. They're descendants from slaves way back. Me, I don't have that trauma in my lineage. I don't see any reason why I need affirmative action. But in America, it's like, oh, well, you're black, so you need to leg up. So when I went to Harvard,

it's like, I like to think I would have gotten in no matter what, but I don't know. Did you have some imposter syndrome and feel as though others didn't think you belonged there as a result of affirmative action and DEI? It's always a question. I don't personally feel like I didn't deserve to be there, but it's always a question. And I know some people are thinking it. And I'll actually tell you a funny story. After I made my shift from the left more toward the right, I consider myself independent, but you know how it goes.

I had someone who knew me, knew me personally, knew me well, who was a liberal, lash out at me because of something I said and threw the fact that I went to Harvard as a black man in my face and basically tried to imply that I got into Harvard because I'm black. I was like, wait, you're supposed to be the side that's looking out for me and you're trying to insult me and take away my achievements. This whole worldview, it's like you do things that sound good, but I don't think they actually have a good impact. Now, do I think that black people in this country want help? Yeah. Would I like to see Trump help anyone who is in a

position where they don't feel like they have opportunity? Of course. But a lot of these policies, they sound good on their face, but they actually have a psychological impact or a very tangible impact that's quite negative for these communities. I guess, do you think you'd have a different perspective if you were an African descendant of slaves as opposed to an African migrant, a first generation African migrant from Africa now? I might, but then the question would be, okay, well, why aren't we spending as much effort on the starting line for black Americans as we are on the finish line? Why is it that when someone is 18, they're just artificially shoved into an employment role or an admissions role that they just don't have as good qualifications at, rather than in K through 12, we're making sure that we're giving kids good education in inner city schools, or making sure that they're not being exposed to environmental toxins that are retarding their development. That's what we need to actually do. But instead, we do the sledgehammer, most obvious seeming solution that doesn't actually solve the root causes of the problem.

Absolutely. For the record, I agree with you. I just wanted to steal the argument. You just hit the nail on the head with a hammer. This is all finish line stuff. Yeah. You've nailed it. They're trying to drag people who can't run across the finish line instead of going to the beginning when everyone's training and make sure everybody's got that training program and that access so that they can run on their own merit.

Exactly. Amazing. And then at the end of the day, what happens? It actually just breeds more racial resentment because now you have in schools and, you know, Harvard just went through this. They just had to, you know, they're still fighting over affirmative action, but you have, you know, Asian kids or Jewish kids or white kids who feel like, okay, well, I didn't cause this,

these, these initial starting conditions that my black and brown peers are dealing with, but now I don't have anything to do except give them my spot. And what's that going to do? It's going to breed resentment. It actually creates more racism because newsflash discrimination always creates more discrimination. So the solution to discrimination is equality, not saying, oh, because this group was discriminated against, we need to discriminate against this other group to get something back to them. It just keeps on going in cycles.

So the only way to stop this is with principled approaches and figure out, hey, how do we give the people who need the help, the help that they need in the ways that they actually need it early, not at the end here. Yeah, absolutely. Spot on. But then what we end up with is a Democratic Party that doesn't want to solve a problem. They want a wedge issue they can continually use. So they need to do half measures that make it look like they're doing something. Affirmative action. Yeah, we'll get

you into college. See, look at all the great things I'm doing for you. But they don't actually want these problems to be solved. They don't, you know, the Democrats love that Roe v. Wade got overturned. They're like, wow, we're going to be able to, we have a wedge issue now for every election. Every, you know, they could have codified Roe v. Wade anytime they wanted. Whenever they had, whenever they had the, during Obama, they could have done, they didn't do it. The Republicans could have got rid of Obamacare several times. They could do it right now. They won't do it. This Republicans could have got rid of Obamacare several times. They could do it right

now. They won't do it because what politicians do. Yep. Yep. Because the goal is to stay in power, not to actually use your power to make a solution. Let's jump to this story from the post-millennial CNN analyst says white South Africans should go back to Europe indicates genocide is what establishes refugee status. This is actually an amazing clip. Let's play it. Okay. So if you think about the history of South Africa, it being under an apartheid system, where I think it is 80% of the population that are black Africans only own 4% of the land. That is because they were put in shanty towns and moved into areas where they had no rights. And so 35, 30 plus years ago,

they went through a revolution, the apartheid system ended, and they reformed their constitution under the great leader of Nelson Mandela. And that allowed for a racial reconciliation, one that this country has yet to do. But South Africa did it and they reformed their constitution. And part of that is that the people who are native to that land deserve their rightful land back. That is not what the Afrikaners actually want to have happen, which are the white Africans. And so who are not originally from Africa, who colonize South Africa also. And so that is what they are saying is discrimination.

Now, if the Constitution in South Africa is discriminatory, they have their checks and balances in that land, just like we do. And that is for them to. So if the Afrikaners don't actually like the land, they can leave that country. They are. They're leaving to come. No, they can actually leave and go to where their native land is, which is probably Germany. Are you against them coming here? Holland. Holland. Are you against them coming here? I'm against the hypocrisy of this administration.

No, that's not the question. The question is, are you against them coming here? If there was actually a genocide happening like there is in other places in Sudan, in the Congo, I would not I'm not opposed for Congo. So here's just to adjust her point. These people, she says, could go back to their ancestral homeland. You know, what's really fascinating is I look at everything we're dealing with, the solutions proposed and the mechanisms put in place by Democrats. And my only conclusion is, well, these Democrats are racist. And I'll tell you why. If the worldview of the left is decolonized, what does that produce?

Honestly, if she's saying white people go back to Germany. OK, so all the white people go back to Europe. All the black people go back to Africa. Ethno, literal nations of segregation. That's what they're advocating for. And then I'm thinking about what are they doing here? They're opening the floodgates so that unskilled labor can flood into this country. What will that do? It will create competition among the low skilled base of most white,

most poor people in this country, not white, but most poor people in this country are white because white people are the majority of the country. You then bring in a whole bunch of people from Central and South America and even some in Africa who are going to compete against those people and you will create racism. I think that's what they want to have happen. Well, I mean, if they're if they're working from an ideologically leftist position, then yes. So because there is no longer revolutionary energy in the working class. They have moved. This is all Herbert Marcuse from the 50s.

But he said that because capitalism delivers the goods, capitalism gives a good life to people, there was no more revolutionary energy in the working class. So what they needed to do was they needed to go to the, this is Marcuse talking, they needed to go to the ghettos and get people that were the racial minorities and have those people basically stoke racial tensions to get them to engage in revolutionary activities in the United States because capitalism works. This lady from CNN is so dishonest and that's because she's saying something that I don't think she actually believes.

She doesn't think that people, if you think there's genocide happening in the country that you should go back to your country. Because guess what? She wouldn't apply that to, if you think there's genocide happening in the country, that you should go back to your country. Because guess what? She wouldn't apply that to anybody here. Herself? Yeah, exactly. She would never apply that to any of the immigrants in the United States. But no, in South Africa.

No, no, no, no. They're not immigrants. These Afrikaners have been there for hundreds of years. So for the black people who have been here for hundreds of years and have been oppressed, right, and undermined and been treated as second class citizens, she wouldn't tell them, oh, just go back to Africa. Of course not. And that's why she's extremely dishonest. And this isn't an argument that she'd make because she doesn't

believe in it. And I guarantee you, actual white supremacists would look at her and say, ma'am, you are correct. Can I pay for your trip? Jared Taylor's probably looking at this woman and going, yes, ma'am. Like, yeah, I agree with you wholeheartedly. They want all the white people to go back to Europe and reestablish Europe. And they want all of the non-whites out of America. If she were consistent, but she's not.

And she's just making that argument to throw it in this guy's face. Tim makes a good, a really good point. The end result of what she's talking about is ethnostates, which is what the, which is something that the left consistently says is a terrible thing. That's part of the reason why they hate Israel is because they say Israel is an ethno-state and ethno-states are bad. Well, if ethno-states are bad, then why are you telling people to go back to their countries

of origin? And why are you only doing it to white people? Because you don't hear them telling people of color to go back to their countries of origin? And why are you only doing it to white people? Because you don't hear them telling people of color to go back to their countries of origin. Unfortunately, I think she makes a really bad argument that, and she could make a much better argument here, which is that, hey, okay, let's say that we consider it a moral imperative as Americans to protect these people who are being racially persecuted in South Africa, which I believe is happening. I do believe that there's anti-white discrimination in South Africa. There's this video of the leader

of the third most popular party in South Africa literally saying, kill all the boars, which is white farmers. Oh, that video of them in that stadium. Yeah. So I don't know, obviously, the intimate details of what's going on in South Africa, but I take it at face value when they say that something is going on. Maybe not a white genocide, but something is going on. Obviously, these people left their land for a reason. Well, I think I think the argument let me just finish one second. I think the argument she should be making is, OK, well, let's protect people consistently who are dealing with racial persecution in their land, because this is happening in Ethiopia. It's happening in China.

The Uyghur Muslims. It's happening. I think it's happening in Afghanistan with the Hazara. Yeah, it's happening all over the place. And what I don't like about this is Trump not making a transparency policy and principled stance on, hey, we protect people who are being persecuted from anywhere so their doors are open. Because what he did in January is say, we're not going to open the door to refugees at

all. Now he's saying this specific group of refugees is being allowed. Now, to be clear, I don't think he's doing it because they're white, because in that case, he would allow the Ukrainians in. And he's been talking about expelling the Ukrainians as recently as last month. I do think he is protecting them because they are being targeted because they're white, which is different. And I think it's important to deal with anti-white racism because it's real

and it doesn't get enough attention that said I actually think he is creating more distrust by not laying out a policy he's like hey we protect people from any kind of racial persecution across planet earth not just people who are being targeted because they're white that's the argument she should be making and instead she's actually undermining her case I also don't want to beat around the bush here at all i think the reason why people care about this story the reason why the people care about the track meet stabbing story the people the reason why people care about that shiloh story of the the woman yelling the n-word at this child allegedly is because it's a black and white issue and people are using this to stoke racial tension and that's why it's extra

sensational it's a backlash yeah i'm not so like i feel like we need to acknowledge that people care more about these stories because there are black and white people involved also like i'd be remiss if i didn't mention like the white guy is arguing obviously pro-south africa the black woman's arguing that you know that they shouldn't be brought here so i feel like um we can't we can't miss that also i was at the white house when stephen Stephen Miller was being asked about it. Again, and he's a white guy, and he was being asked by a black reporter about this. I feel like we can't overlook the racial dynamics here. And to not mention them, I think, is missing a dynamic here.

And I think it would be different if they weren't white. It is the norm on the planet Earth for people to be racist. And it is only in a tiny blip of American history and Western civilization, ancillary groups have been trying to return the world to how it used to be. Nation states based on race, racial tribalism. That's what they advocate for here. And they're going to continue to advocate for it. Can I add one more layer of hypocrisy?

There's an alleged genocide happening in Gaza, right? No, none of these guys have been arguing for them to be brought over to europe or america as refugees i would i would hate that i do not want any not one palestinian refugee to be brought to the united states frankly i don't think any refugees should be brought over for the middle east i think we've who i'm saying so this lady right she was saying that we should bring in refugees from areas where genocides are occurring right but the left never argues that the Palestinians should leave Gaza. Right. They're saying that they need to stay there.

And UNRWA actually exists so they could continue existing there. That's the response. They have to stay there, actually. It would be, it's immoral if they'd leave. Right. So like, again, the layers of hypocrisy. No, no. It's a good point.

Say to this lady, hey, look, didn't, you know, Trump said that he wanted to make Mara Gaza. How about we bring all of the Palestinian people to the United States? I don't even want to joke around about that. Like, I wouldn't even want to troll about that. I think that would be such a mistake. They would never say yes to that. Yeah.

I mean, I also think we already see the consequences of some immigration from the Middle East and how our lack of values being compatible has manifested in our country. I actually want to go back to something you said earlier, Lod, about the racial dynamic, because, yeah, that's clearly what's happening. Obviously, it didn't start with Carmelo, but in recent memory, it started with Carmelo and then Shiloh and now this. Right. And I think what is happening is we're seeing this discriminatory loop play out where black people have felt discriminated against historically, which is obviously the case. And in response, a lot of the left has been trying to deal with that discrimination by discriminating against other groups.

So now white people have felt discriminated against. And when they see that black people are allowed to say and do whatever we want and say that Carmelo is somehow just acting in self-defense and he deserves a million dollars for his legal fund and not also simultaneously saying, hey, he killed a kid and that's just morally bad irrespective of color, then of course white people are going to engage in an equal and opposite response because there's hypocrisy on both sides. I think you could even, it goes back so far, but a case that comes to mind was even in the OJ case, the black community refuses to acknowledge the guilt of OJ Simpson and black

people writ large were happy to see him get off despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary that he should have been found guilty. I mean, black people aren't unique with their in-group preferences. What we get from the left is you had this liberal society in the United States, and I mean that in the philosophical sense, where a bunch of white people were like, we don't want to be racist. And so the norms of this country were largely like, yeah, racism is bad, don't do that. Then you had, with the OJ case, black individuals who were collectively black, meaning they

found identity, identitarian, as it were, that their political ideas were rooted in their race. What the woke left does is they tell these people, white people are all secretly white supremacists, and they're doing everything to hold you back so that they can inflame the identitarian conflict for whatever reason i don't know i think they're largely racist and if you trace the history of the democratic party you might be shocked to find indeed they may have always been yeah yeah and ironically i mean i i agree everyone has a degree of racism. Everyone. Yeah. And I think the actual solution, instead of policing people's thoughts, is to get it out in the open and expose people to one another. Because once people actually interact with each other, like, oh, OK, this is like a person.

Because racism is fundamentally about dehumanization. But instead what we do is we cancel people for anything that even has a whiff of not even racism, but any kind of racial preference at all. And I think that's ridiculous. Like I, as you said, black people have an in-group preference. White people have an in-group preference. Every group has an in-group preference. I'll say it. Jewish people have an in-group preference.

Obviously. Yeah. Obviously. It's okay to have a preference. It's okay to have a preference. It's okay to have a preference. It's not okay to dehumanize people on the other side of your preference. But let's make sure we have distinctions between the two. So we're not calling everything racism because you can't actually spot racism when it's actually happening.

The things I have heard Catholics say of Protestants, oh boy. Oh, yeah. The point that you're making, that was something that I heard Muhammad Ali talking about in the 60s. He was saying, look, I want to live around black people. White people want to live around white people there's nothing wrong with it and it's like to even say that nowadays is con is very controversial you know for if if someone just were to say well you know it's normal for people to want to live around people like them that that's something that that is is really will get people like oh what do you how can you say that but then you look at the way that like neighborhoods end up and they just people naturally kind of do that chinatown literally

these that's that's a very normal thing for human beings to do when chicago elected uh brandon johnson i think his name is right i looked being from chicago i pulled up the electoral map and I noticed something based on the voting patterns. So I pulled up the race makeup of the neighborhoods of Chicago and I compared the map side by side. And lo and behold, what would you find? Every racial demographic voted for the mayoral candidate who was their race. Of course. No joke. There was one deviant. There was one deviant.

There was one outlier. So in the Latino area, you look at the election, number one, Latino guy. Number two, Latino guy. Number three, white guy. You go to the black neighborhood, even, this is what was fascinating. In the black community in Chicago,

the top three candidates, I think four or five, were all black, even though most of those people they were voting for were nowhere near front runners. So there was this one white dude who was expected to be likely one of the winners. He was polling really, really well. They didn't vote for him at all. The whites up the white areas, not the white areas of Chicago that are, you know, not just generally white voted for the white guy. The only neighborhood that didn't was Loyola, which is where the university was. And it's largely white. And it voted for Brandon Johnson, putting him over the edge. This is a city where no one actually

cared about the policies of the individual or what the city was going to build. All they cared about was the person who was in charge was the same race as them. That's terrifying. Yeah. You remember that Obama clip? I'm sure you guys saw it where he was chastising black men for not voting for Kamala and saying that, oh, she grew up like you. And it's like, it was incredibly condescending because the implication was, hey, you should vote for this person because they look like you, not because they'll do right by you. Right. And that's a problem with tribalism.

It hurts everyone. Right. When you're this tribal, you actually will do things that self-sabotage merely because someone looks like you, which is ridiculous. So, yeah, I think, look, we need to acknowledge the reality of this discrimination in both directions here. And in order to stop the discrimination, we have to focus on equality, not promoting people who are in some sort of underprivileged class that we've now elevated to privilege because they've been oppressed more. I want to jump to this clip from the Joe Rogan experience. This is fascinating. In this clip, Jillian Michaels is appearing on a show, and Joe and Jillian both say they were hoaxed by the Maryland man lie. Check this out.

Saying, oh, my God, they deported a Maryland man and a father because that's what I was reading the news. Same. And then you get into it and you're like, oh, wait a minute. Oh, hold on. And then they released the dash cam footage, the police footage of when they arrested him. Not dash cam, you know, whatever the cops are wearing. I know what you're talking about. Yeah.

I thought the exact same thing. It's crazy, but it's just like, you can't just go on narratives, because these narratives are just designed to make the Trump administration look like monsters. I was giving an interview to this woman from the New York Times, and she's like, well, don't you see this? And I was like, I do see it, and I don't understand it, and I wish it would be different, but then you get into the lesser evils I wrote her back and I was like I don't agree with my previous position based on the current information available to me now it seems like he was a gang member but then there was that gay hairdresser that like seems like he just got

roped up I know and what I have learned so far because I've really been trying to get to the bottom of that one because I don't understand why the left isn't leaning on that one. The other guy beats his wife, suspected trafficker. You want to be outraged? This guy is a gay hairdresser. I guess he committed, I was listening to Tim Pool talk about this, immigration fraud. So, listen, that guy's a tough one. He doesn't belong in an El Salvador prison.

I agree with you completely. Also, he's not even from El Salvador. So breaking this down, the one thing I'll say is, you know, I will clarify just in case I spoke poorly. My argument on the gay hairdresser was that if he entered the country illegally through the southern border with the intention of falsely claiming asylum so he could just be an economic migrant here that would be fraud uh however i do agree i mean this is this is it is fascinating the left isn't leaning on that story because we don't have a lot of details about it he was adjudicated to be a ms-13 gang member i'm sorry was it was it ms-13 or trenday at rodwell he has the crowns ms-13 are you talking about the hairdresser hairdresser the hairdresser

i think had the crowns he had the crowns on his wrist. And so there is a challenge there. I even asked the Secretary Noem about this. But anyway, more to the point, what I found fascinating with this clip is it has been 10 years of the Trump era. And still to this day, Joe, and I mean this with no disrespect, of all people, read the news and thought it was true that this guy was just from Maryland. That was the purpose of the Maryland Man Hoax. So the two things that I wanted to get out on this one with this segment, the reason why I want to talk about this, guys, their strategy, the Maryland Man Hoax, was working. They were convincing people that this guy, like, I'm going to say again, you know, Phil, I think you asked this earlier in the show.

If like the left just believes crazy things, that would you as that, right? Yeah. Is that why we have this culture? And I largely believe that is true. The example being Hassan Piker. Guys, I know I bring him up because this is a really great example. He genuinely believed this guy was from Maryland. I would be I would be mad too if the news came out that Trump rounded up an American citizen and sent him to a El Salvadoran prison. I'd be saying like,

what do you mean you're not getting him back? What? This is crazy. But then it's like, oh, he's Salvadoran. Oh, he was here illegally. Oh, they found him to be a gang member. Oh, he was arrested with gang members. Oh, he beats his wife on multiple occasions. And he was deported due to administrative error. So it wasn't a crime. It was a mistake. What's the problem? That was the goal of their hoax. But I want to stress, thanks to all of you guys, everybody who watches this show,

and the work of all of the alternative media space calling out the Maryland Man hoax, we've shattered that narrative. We have shattered their attempt to lie. And you can see now, Jillian Michaels saying she called back the New York Times and said, I don't stand by that anymore. I take back. Amazing. So you information vaccinated Jillian Michaels. How's it feel, Dr. Tim? I don't think I did, actually.

I think they both said they believed it. They joke. So it's antibiotic because then she said after she watched you. There we go. But I do want to stress because she did say I was listening to Tim Poole and I guess he committed immigration fraud. I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa. My argument is like the reason why we deport these people is they illegally enter the country through the southern border. Then afterwards try and falsely claim asylum when they don't actually need it.

If he came from Venezuela and was in Mexico, Mexico is awesome. Guys, have you got have you been to mexico yeah no have you no phil and i don't want it is awesome where in mexico did you go i went to um mazunte oh wow that's sick yeah just resort areas i think resort areas in mexico might be awesome but mexico proper probably well i've also been to tijuana i did not like tijuana but i love maz. I almost moved there. Is that a resort area? It's not a resort.

I mean, at least at the time it wasn't. It's just like a small beach town. I went to one of the resort areas. I think it was Temecula. I'm not sure. That might be wrong, though. But I also went to Mexico City. I've been to Aguascalientes.

I went to Monterey. You've been everywhere. You've played everywhere. Look, I'll just say this. Oh, you toured there. Obviously, there's bad crime-ridden cartel areas in Mexico, but nobody goes like, oh, I've been everywhere. You played everywhere. Look, I'll just say this. Oh, okay. Towards obviously there's bad crime, written cartel areas in Mexico, but nobody goes like, oh,

I don't know. America sucks. Don't go to Detroit. It's like, no, America's great. Here's where you go. Uh,

Mexico's got great places. My point being this Venezuelan guy who travels from Venezuela through central America, through Mexico, all these countries claiming, oh, I'm being persecuted in my home country. OK, Mexico is right there, bro.

They got Buffalo Wild Wings. It's fantastic. Why don't you stay there? Why did you illegally enter the United States? My argument is I would accuse I would argue that is fraud, not that he was convicted or charged with having committed fraud. Can I actually just you know, we talked about this Judge Dugan case where she tried to help this illegal immigrant escape.

And now we're talking about this case where people are rallying around Abrego Garcia rather than the hairdresser. And this is very strange. I want to get your guys' thoughts on this thesis. This is a very strange worldview on parts of the left where they celebrate the worst of them yeah and they actually shun the best of them right so like they pushed rfk away they pushed tulsi gabbard away today i don't know if you guys saw this david hogg thing i don't have a super high of opinion of them but one of the things i've said i've heard is like okay there's some sanity left on the left

and they're kicking him out they kick him out too's like, you guys are actually self-defeating. This whole worldview is self-defeating and no one is actually responsible for their own decision. If you're a criminal, it's probably because you were just disadvantaged. You're not responsible for anything if you had bad starting conditions.

And yeah, I think it's very strange and I think Jillian correctly observed. Yeah, why are they rallying around this guy when they have a better alternative right next to him? So I think it's actually a political strategy to try to pick one of the worst peoples, to try to open up the Overton window as far as you can go. I think for the gay hairdresser, it might have been too simple of an issue. For this other guy, they were trying to really have people sympathize with a gang member, but that really

widens the overton window it allows them to do that's a that's a really good point yeah the fact that he was a gang member was the intent so that they could create a scenario where people would have they wanted democrats to be tribally defending a gang member yeah and then you can justify anything if a gang member is not responsible for his crimes, then who's responsible for anything? Illegal gang members deserve full due process like they're American citizens. Let's think about the strategy. The strategy would be, OK, if they go with the gay hairdresser guy, then the argument is, OK, Trump can deport all the all the criminals. Everybody worse. So if they go with the worst criminal, first you say he's a Maryland man. All the liberals then defend him. Then when the news breaks that he's a criminal, which the Democrats and the prominent liberals want to happen, they then say it's not about whether he's a criminal.

Like you said, it's about due process. The liberals will tribally then double down and say it is fine. And this will shift the Overton window towards we must protect MS-13 gang members because they deserve rights like everybody else. And then they'll gaslight you. Oh, barely said MS-13. It was just marijuana,

smiley face, cross and a three, like on his hands, like skull. So it's just like, you know, so they'll try to use this ambiguity. Oh,

his girlfriend or wife at the time called the police. Cause maybe he beat him or beat her or something. So yeah, I think it strikes in the face. So I think it's, again, a kind of way, a political strategy. And it's because it's not even for when the left tries to say that police also will kill unarmed black men. They'll pick like the worst cases or picked armed black men to show them killing to try to perpetuate this narrative. And they'll always choose the worst cases because again, they're trying to extend the Overton window. Yeah. It's an interesting theory. And I don't know if I have to push back or just comment on

something you just said, because I'm not sure what you actually believe on this. I think due process is important. I think, you know, the constitution guarantees due process for everyone. I think what's not being talked about is what is due process in each case. Because due process for an illegal gang member is not necessarily the same as a due process for an American citizen. Okay, exactly. It's literally not. Yeah, it's qualitative. It's like a fair process. A fair process, it varies based on the situation. So yeah, I think it's fair to say this guy deserves due process, of course. But what's happening is, yeah, they're using due process as a Trojan horse to try to convince you that, yeah, he's just a Maryland man. Or, yeah, there's no reason to believe that he's in the country illegally or all these other things.

You know what I think this is? There's a loss of the understanding of root language. And so what ends up happening is someone – when I was a kid, the teenage girls in my high school thought the word ignorant meant rude. They didn't understand because they just heard someone say a racial slur and then some responded that's ignorant. And the intention was that person doesn't understand what they're doing. They hear it in the context is rude. So what happens is people hear the phrase due process and they think it's Latin. They think it means some Latin term, mens rea.

It's just a legal term that means you get a trial. Due process is a literal English phrase. We don't even need to say due process. We can say fair hearing. We can say fair process. It is the process you are due under the law. It's not universal. Due process literally just means legal processes that you are due under the law. It's not universal. Due process literally just means legal processes

that you are due. So what's happened is even conservatives think due process means trial. Exactly. And I'm seeing on Twitter, on X, liberals will be like, why aren't they getting due process? And they'll say, I'll see a response from a conservative guy being like, illegal immigrants shouldn't get trials. And I'm like, you're arguing two different things. The legal and fair process by which a person goes through our legal system to determine whether they're right, wrong, deportable, or criminal is due process.

Not getting due process means you are not treated fairly. That's all it means. I agree. I think it's a level of due process. But a fact statement, not an opinion. I think, yeah, illegal immigrants should get a different level of due process or a level of due process then i gotta stop you there once again the phrase due process is being used as a like latin term of uh they should get a different

level of what is fair for them yeah no everybody should get what is fair for them okay due process means fair treatment of the law that's all it means yeah illegal immigrants what is fair for them. Due process means fair treatment of the law. That's all it means. Illegal immigrants, what is fair? An ICE agent will review their status, determine if they're a citizen, and if not, and if they've been here less than two years, expedited removal. That is due process. It is the fair treatment of the law that they receive based on the codified law set forth by Congress and the Constitution. I agree.

It's a linguistic trap that I see many conservatives falling into where they're arguing that due process is not due when they need to argue, no, due process is being served and this is what's due process in this case. And the argument for like,

okay, how are we going to remove 10 to 20 million people in the country? We can give them all due process and due process might mean a day in court rather than this years-long thing that we have to do

that makes it impossible to actually enforce the law. This is this is the game they're playing. Donald Trump made a statement. We shouldn't give trials to every illegal immigrant. The media then came out and said Trump is trying to deny due process to illegal immigrants because they want to shift the Overton window and convince you that we cannot deport a person without a trial. Trump was saying and they're pulling out of context. Why a person without a trial. Trump was saying, and they're pulling him out of context. Why would we have a trial for illegal immigrants? It would take forever. Trump's, the context of what Trump is saying is we don't give illegal immigrants trials. Why would

we start now? The media misrepresents what he's saying so that they can try and make the argument that it is normal for all illegal immigrants all the time everywhere to get a trial with a judge. Nope. Sometimes you go to an ICE agent and he goes, not a citizen on the plane. That's your due process. That's your due process. Yep. Expedited removal. That's why words matter. Yeah. And, you know, having gone through all of this and even gone through debates, there are a bunch of different ways that individuals get different degrees of due process. If you've been here longer than two years, you get a hearing. You can actually argue for a hearing. If you're being deported under the Alien Enemies Act, which Trump just won that court case, the judge sided with him.

She still said if a person is to be deported under AEA, they can challenge it. That's one of the reasons why Trump was trying to avoid using AEA in some circumstances, because Alien Enemies Act deportation says you are an invader of this country to which they can say, oh, yeah, prove it. Whereas if Trump just says we've reviewed your citizenship and you are ineligible to be in the United States, so you're being deported, they don't get a hearing. I think there is also something to say about the amount of illegal immigrants that we have in our country isn't going to be able to be handled by the way we currently have our laws set up the current system was not set up to be able to give whatever level of due process or however we were going to break it down to 20 minutes to 20 million people i'm stopping you right now you did it again it's the

level of due process you said we weren't going to be able to give due process wrong. We absolutely there's no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. You misunderstand. Due process just means what is fair under the law. We always in this country, 100% of the time, seek to give people what is fair under the law. Only when there's malicious prosecution or errors do people not get what's fair under the law. There was never a circumstance by which Trump was going to give people less due process. We will always, 100% of the time, as a country, functionally give illegal immigrants their due process.

Because illegal immigrants abused our immigration law so aggressively, I think we need to change the way, legally, how we do due process for some of these illegal migrants. But we don't because due process is already a subjective thing. Like we got to choose what we consider a fair hearing, trial. It can be more than that. So I think what Tim is saying is there's not levels of due process. It's that the due process under the law, but the law needs to be- No, no, no, no.

There's not levels of due process. Due process is a blanket term that means you'll be treated fairly. That's it. That's all it means. Let's just say fair process, right? We can give everyone a fair process, but a fair process for, I don't know, tax evasion might look different than a fair process for entering the country illegally. And I do think we need to change something about the courts in order to process this

many people who are here illegally. But I think it's actually just expand the capacity of the courts. Like, this is not enough judges. You can't do enough hearings. It needs to be at least 10x'd. But we can give everyone due process and we should. It's like the process due to you. It's not like a thing. It's a process

that we are going to give you. Like you said, we've decided upon that already. Instead of saying due process, say treated fairly. Yeah, exactly. The illegal immigrants who come here will be treated fairly. I think the illegal immigrants who come here are treated too fairly under the law. And they abused our immigration law. And if we don't change the way we do it, the President Trump won't be able to effectively deport 20 million illegal immigrants.

It's not that they're being treated too fairly. It's that all you're saying is we should make it easier to deport them. Yes. Once again. I agree. In many words, every legalese. Right. And I think it's important because it's crazy how the left is using this. The reason why I'm harping on it so much, I know it's, you know, it might just be semantics is because the left is using exactly what you're saying. They're going to clip what you said and said, here is a conservative saying less due process. And then they're going to go to their fans and they're going to say, they're literally saying that they're not going to treat you fairly

under the law, that they're going to create special classes of citizens who gets special treatment. No, no, no, no. An illegal immigrant will always get due process. And what does that due process? A nice agent will say, are you a citizen? They'll say no. And they'll say, on the plane. That's it. Like that. That's due process. No judge, no hearing, nothing. Yeah. And part of the problem with this term is it's not well-defined. It's like saying systemic racism. What does that actually mean? No one knows what it means, but people get upset about it and you keep on moving the goalpost on what's enough. So I agree. We should identify what is the minimum threshold for what we consider fair. And it might be a few hours talking with an ICE agent. I leave that up to the administration to decide and do that and say we can do that.

And let's like get to business here. Let's jump to this next story from the Postmillennial. Bud Light parent company to invest $300 million to manufacture in the U.S. This new $300 million investment in our manufacturing facilities across the U.S. Will it work? That's not going to fix Dylan Mulvaney. I don't think it will. I think Bud Light's screwed. I do think less people care than most people think. I go out to any bar or any casino and everybody's drinking Bud Light. However, they have not recovered from the damage caused by Dylan

Mulvaney. They're now announcing they're going to do this big investment in the United States. Anheuser-Busch InBev's North American branch is going to start manufacturing in the United States. They're based in Missouri. Where were they manufacturing before? Mexico? That's a good question. I think so.

Well then, I guess that was a simple story. Yeah. I think so. Well then, I guess that was a simple story. Nobody, nobody believes this will save Bud Light? No. I think Bud Light is still the piss beer of choice among, you know, most Americans.

If I'm just drinking, looking for a piss beer to drink real quick, I'll sip on a Bud Light if I need to. It's kind of whatever's there. So like Bud Light, boom, all right, whatever.

Like, we did an event. Reliable, bad beer all right, whatever. We did an event. Reliable bad beer. We did an event right after the Dillamove anything happened. And like we had to talk to the bar about it because they had Bud Light prominently displayed. And we were like, it's probably a bad idea. Like, look, honestly, I don't care if people want to buy a Bud Light. I mean, they probably get laughed at.

And then they took all the display Bud Lights down and said, like, we're a bar. We're not going to just throw out all our Bud Light, but we get it. And I was like, hey, man, I don't care if you show it or don't, but I'm just, you know, like, I'm wondering what you guys think. And they thought it'd probably be smart to get rid of the Bud Light. I didn't realize there's still a hangover from the whole dilemma of anything. I don't know the last time I even had Bud Lights. I'm the wrong audience. Well, it's not just that.

It's that young people don't drink sugar and booze and stuff anymore. Yeah. Well, they're not even going outside, so how could that happen exactly? Maybe this is the problem. Maybe the reason the younger generation isn't getting laid

is because they just don't go outside and get drunk. Well, yeah, actually. Where would you get drunk and laid? College. They canceled college for a year. You know they say that civilization owes everything to beer? Because it was the humans that stopped to ferment the wheat and the barley and stuff to make beer

that resulted in a grand society and civilization in towns. Humans used to be nomadic, and then they were like, wait, we can't leave. We got all this beer. Could it also be that the only reason people have kids is because they get drunk? Yeah. I'm half kidding, by the way. That's a little rapey, but... What do you mean?

Well, that's because the left would call that rapey. Sure. They would say, oh, you know, if you're in any way inebriated, then you can't consent. And if you can't consent, then it's a sexual assault. No, no, no. Phil, the woman is getting the man drunk. Oh, fair enough. But even, the woman is getting the man drunk. Oh, fair enough.

The woman's not sober. Well, if you're progressive enough, then, you know, the woman getting the man drunk is also a sexual assault. Still a problem. Yeah, it's still a problem. But it is true. I mean, there's a lot of social interactions that wouldn't have happened unless people had a couple drinks. And it's very normal. As much as the left wants to try to demonize you for it, it's very normal for someone to go ahead and be like, you know what? I'll have a couple drinks and and it's it's very normal as much as the left wants to try to demonize you for it it's very normal for someone to go ahead and be like you know what i'll have a couple drinks

so that way i my inhibitions are i'm not so self-conscious my inhibitions are a little bit lower and i can go talk to people and i can i can you know hang out with people remember this one exactly exactly super viral uh this was a poster at what was was it, Columbia? Coastal Carolina University. It said, Jake was drunk, Josie was drunk, Jake and Josie hooked up, Josie could not consent. The next day, Jake was charged with rape. A woman who was intoxicated cannot give her legal consent for sex, so proceeding under these circumstances is a crime.

It only takes a single day to ruin your life. This is another point I make about wokeness. People need to understand, woke wasn't always race. Like, the left culty nonsense was very much the me too movement with things like this illogical unjust and it was it was gender-based so uh there you have it and i think the gen z kids who grew up with this took it to heart and that's why they hide yeah i mean imagine you're a young a boy who sees this kind of propaganda your whole life.

Of course, you're going to be afraid of women. Of course, you're going to be afraid that she's going to accuse you of something that you didn't do years later. Of course, you're not going to want to even try because even trying is considered creepy or considered in some way toxic masculinity. And then women wonder, well, where are all the men? Well, this propaganda is preventing boys from even wanting to be men and take risks and put themselves out there. And both women and men are suffering. So I hope people see this and they realize, oh, okay, well, why do we have a decline in birth rate? Why are people not actually connecting? Why

are people not in relationships? It's this kind of rhetoric that doesn't have compassion for either side and treats the man always as some sort of toxic aggressor and always the women's completely abnegating all responsibility it's killing both of us well it's it it treats it treats women as if they're consistently uh you know things are happening to them whereas as opposed to actually having any kind of agency but as soon as they want to have agency of course course, they have to be, you know, looked at as a strong woman that can, you know, boss bitch kind of thing. But then in any context in which they don't want to deal with their repercussions,

and society really encourages this kind of behavior, but any situation where women don't want to deal with the repercussions, well, then they were victims. They were somehow uh you know put in this position it was put upon it wasn't their fault and society's been teaching men that the worst thing you can do is to in any way make a woman feel uncomfortable you know not it is wrong obviously to you know to be aggressive and hit people or or you know sexual

assault but if you just awkwardly ask a woman out, right, you're you like you like you mentioned, you're risking your reputation, you're risking all kinds of, you know, social repercussions. And that's the way that women, you know, punish people and each other is through social interactions. And so the value for a man to young men to go and actually ask women out like it's a really, really dicey proposal, you know, and they're deciding that, you know, porn and video games is better than risking being embarrassed. Considering that millennials are only just now having kids and it's still at very low rates and Gen Z is not having kids either.

Gen Beta is probably going to be 30 million. Gen Alpha is 40. Some say it could go upwards of 48 maybe if we add another year or two to the bracket. But then Gen Beta is going to be microscopic. Nobody's having kids. Yeah. And this is – people don't understand. There's this great post by... Who posted this?

I can't remember who posted it. It was like a Milton Friedman thing about a pencil. Let me see if I can find this one. Do you know what that's saying? Where no one can make a pencil? Yeah. It was Austin Peterson posted it. There you go.

Let me see if I can pull it up. It's that no one can make a pencil. It is through economics. probably posted it the other day um i am somebody who is pro-choice but i think there's something to be reckoned with about the consequences of giving women such easy access to be able to control their ability to reproduce so 20 years ago teen pregnancy used to ago, teen pregnancy used to be everywhere. Teen pregnancy used to be a huge thing. They used to have a show on MTV, Teen Mom, I think it was.

There are no teen moms anymore. All the young women, all women in their teens are on birth control if they are having sex. And if they do get pregnant or aborting their kids or they don't even have to

have a surgical procedure, they could just use the abortion pill or Mifepristone, which the Trump administration recently struck down a lawsuit to help restrict. So while being pro-choice, I still understand that there are consequences to abortion and access to abortion pills and contraceptives have on birth rates. I know that's so obvious to say, but still, I think we need to look at from a bird's eye view, if that makes sense. Like women's ability to stop themselves from getting pregnant affects birth rates. Yes. Can I tell you a story? Or actually, Tim, do you have a thing that you want to show?

I was going to. No, I couldn't find it. I'll say real quick that the point of the pencil thing I was bringing up is that when the population shrinks, our ability to produce technologies goes with it. Yeah. So, you're not going to have PlayStation.

Like, the less people there are, the closer you're going to get to working on a farm. So, I want to tell you guys a story. Can I do that? Yeah. Okay, so two weeks ago, I was in Japan

and I went to Osaka. So dope. And I was just walking around with some friends and we met these girls and they're like 22 23 one from Canada one from the US so we're just you know joking around having a good time and then eventually I hear one of the girls say Trump and JD Vance need to die top of her lungs were like walking around Osaka. She says it once. I'm like, what is going on? She says it again. I don't know if it was after that second time or the third time that I confronted her about it. Not aggressively, but it's like, hey,

what's going on here? I made a joke about do you hate men or do you hate Republicans? What's going on here exactly? All of a sudden, the conversation devolved into a conversation about abortion. Now, my position is like yours. I think it's just untenable for women to not have the right to choose. I think an abortion is always a tragedy, though, and I would like to see women choosing to have abortions much less. 93%, at least 93% of abortions are not medically necessary. It's just a choice. And I get why women make the choice. It can be scary to bring a child into the world. I think many men are abandoning their duty of helping to protect and to provide.

I understand why women do it. And it's always a tragedy regardless of the reason. They were not, of course, not able to listen to me and they kept on trying to yell me down. Eventually, I keep explaining, hey, I'm just pro-choosing life. I'm not telling you you shouldn't have the right to choose. I'm just saying men and women need to work together

so we have fewer abortions. I sidelined with one of the women. The other one was having nothing to do with me at that point. I sidelined with one of the women, and she tells me at age eight, her mom told her that she almost aborted her. Wow. This woman had just argued vehemently for abortion

while telling me that her mom had almost not brought her into this world. And when I pointed out the contradiction, she tried to justify it. It's like, well, it would have been the right choice if my mom chose to make it. It's like, sorry, I'm not going to buy into the delusion that any world in which you exist is a better, don't exist is a better world. That's insane. Especially for that person to say of themselves. Exactly. So self-loathing, frankly. Exactly. But this is whatathing, frankly. Exactly. But this is what's happening to young women.

Young women, look, women are two times more likely to be anxious than men. Women are more susceptible to psychological manipulation. That's okay because women have other things that they're good at relative to men. I don't want a man taking care of my child in daycare. I want a woman doing that. But it used to be that men and women were together. Men could protect women from these dangerous, toxic ideas. But now it's like, yeah, go be a boss, babe. You don't need a man. Go work, climb the corporate ladder. Then they realize they don't

even want to do that when they're age 30. And yeah, birth control, which they're taking from the time that they get a period, is distorting who they're even attracted to. So they're not attracted to masculine men anymore. And it's teaching women that having a child is the end of your life when no it's the beginning of another so yeah there's this very insidious thing that's going on with this it's like it's a thing behind wokeism which is extinctionism really in my mind you know uh having a kid recently. Congratulations. Thank you. I think the pro-life side is really bad at articulating their arguments.

They can't communicate effectively with liberals. And I saw this. Did you see this Charlie Kirk debate on abortion that went viral recently because the guy said he thinks that life doesn't begin until consciousness forms. And then Charlie says, so you'd be fine if you were six months, the baby being killed? And he says, yes. So the issue is for these people, because Vosch, for instance, argued this. I think he argued it on this show when he was debating Charlie Kirk, actually. That, or with me, maybe.

I said, when does life begin? He says, sometime after birth. When? You know, the fascinating thing is babies have personalities. And what's happening is these liberals have not ever been around a baby. They've not spent time with babies. They don't know that babies's got kids and they're like, we all know this already. For me, hearing the pro-life arguments never articulate simple things like babies technically are talking the whole time they're communicating with you. What the left then does is they argue that for the first three months, babies can't actually form any real memories and they don't talk, they don't do anything. So they're not really alive. That's literally the argument they're making. That's how they justify abortion to the point of birth. Whereas if, you know, the pro-life side largely just says life begins at conception. I got a better argument. My daughter doesn't use words, but she's talking.

And so in the past week or so, she started communicating vocally as she was already communicating non-vocally, but I wouldn't call it verbally. So for instance, first she cries. And we get it. A baby crying because a baby needs something. I think liberals can get that. But I'm learning a lot. So for instance, at like two and a half months, my daughter started going, and we know literally what she's saying.

So for instance, we do tummy time. That's when you put the baby on the stomach so that she can learn to crawl and lift her head and start building those muscles. You do it for short periods. At first, she would cry when she got tired. Now she goes, and we're like, I don't care what language you're speaking.

If a French guy exasperated in that way in French, I get the point. So what I'm, what I'm learning is, and again, I know parents already know all this stuff. I'm saying from what I've learned, I would advocate for pro-life individuals to use that knowledge in their arguments. So when a liberal says life doesn't begin, no. Babies are vocally communicating with you right away. And they have personalities. So there's a lot of people around us are having babies. I won't get into people's private lives and talk about who's having what, but there are other babies here. And the personalities are totally distinct. At a month, one month, there are distinct human personalities and behaviors.

Like these are human beings. Just because they don't speak your language right now doesn't mean they're lesser than this. And I would just say, I think pro-lifers should utilize those arguments more. I agree. I think the pro-life arguments, they're just not made well. No, they're very cold.

Yeah. But life begins at conception. Therefore, they're very cold. Yeah. But life begins at conception, therefore life is worthy of legal protections. That's not an argument you're going to give to a liberal who only cares about emotion and feelings. You're going to show them a video of a baby trying to talk and being like, explain to that person, that person right there,

make it an emotional argument. I think men encouraging women they knock up to have the children that they got pregnant with instead of encouraging them to abort the children that he got her pregnant with is what's really going to push this over the edge. I think women are led by men. I think men are natural leaders and women are kind of natural followers. And if men push women in a certain direction, that's a direction they'll go in oftentimes. Except.

I think men have a big responsibility to play here, too. We put a lot of pressure on women. They go through a lot here, too. Right. But the state has replaced men. Yes. And the women are a function of the state. So what it used to be is that there was a patriarchy and the men would fight and die to keep women safe.

And who brought this up? Somebody someone mentioned someone is an argument somebody made that history, human society and gender norms was men building fences around their home to protect their women and their children. And then feminism was a woman coming up and convincing the woman she was being oppressed by being in the fence so the woman tears the fence down and then gets eaten by wolves i saw that and i tweeted it i don't remember you tweeted that i tweeted it though right right right yeah i remember that one and uh yeah these feminists are being so so the issue is women are now voting they're voting in systems of control in government. And I know men vote too, but I'm saying that women are largely Democrat men. It's going to be crazy. Gen Z men

are on the right Gen Z women on the left. So it's going to be real weird in the next 20 years. But they're voting in systems of control and power that men adhere to. So men are getting their directions from women now. Yeah like when, that thing we showed where it's like Josie and Jake were drunk and then Josie was raped but Jake is the rapist, that means there is

a bunch of guys wearing badges who are going to say what happened and Jake and Josie are going to be like, we were both drinking at a party and hooked up

and the cops are going to go, yep, Jake, you're a rapist. You're under arrest. And that is the fault of men. Women are directing society and they can't even decide where they want to go for dinner. I think there's something.

Back on that poster, I don't think it's rape if both of them were drunk and they ended up having sex. But I do think Jake has a little bit more to do with it. You know what I mean? Because Jake probably was the one who would hit on her and initiate the whole thing. And if you know how sex works, it's usually the man who's, you know. So I think men have more. Because men are leaders. you can't treat the law that way that's ridiculous there are numerous there's i mean no no i i didn't say there was a rape and i didn't say both of them being no and you're wrong women hit on guys all the time at drunk frat parties sure college parties there's many women looking at you a lot no i think i think

men and women are different i guess is my point and they behave different socially and their social consequences to that if that makes any sense listen and more men had hit on women than women hit on men and again i'm not saying that it was rape because they were both drunk but i guess differently than men hit on women but women absolutely hit on men absolutely it's just different and you have to understand how women hit on men i think so a lot so here's where i agree with you men and women are different right men are on offense women are on defense that's just how it works all the time from a legal standpoint though we can't treat men and women differently when it comes to the legal standard no no no and again i'm not saying that there's any law breaking but i think we should acknowledge men and women are different and play different roles and i don't

think men again i don't think men and women that's a so-called equal it's a complicated thing what does it mean it's actually a really interesting point that that poster which was a product of the left was very gender stereotypical yeah the poor woman gender roles right so you do like them all right everybody we're to go to your chat. So smash the like button, share the show with everyone, you know. Make sure you go to rumble.com slash timcast IRL.

Join Rumble Premium. Use promo code TIM10 because I've got a special treat for all of you in the uncensored portion of the show. Phil was laughing earlier. It's a project

that I've been working on for a very, very, very, very short amount of time that you're going to enjoy and I'll get in trouble for. But let's read your chats. For a very, very short amount of time. Indeed. Let's read your Rumble Rants.

Shady Dwilder says, Tapper thinks everyone is too stupid to see Biden wasn't fit. March 19th, 2021, Biden fell up the stairs. He said to a crowd, Trinidad, a shot, but a pressure. Trinidad, a shot, but a pressure. To quote Joe, come on, man.

We still sell sleepy Joe decaf at Casper.com. Concrete Haiti says, Elad, the white thing on the table may have been a snot rag, but there are videos of basically everyone in that meeting repeatedly wiping their noses as if they had just recently snorted a line. So I think this is part of the issue. So now people genuinely believe, again, so he's admitting that it wasn't a bag on the table.

It's just, oh, because people were sniffing, now we're going to accuse world leaders of doing blow. So I don't know. Maybe it's because I think of myself a little bit as a journalist that I think we need to have evidence to reach these conclusions. It seems like a sweeping conclusion to come to. I don't know and again it's the people who are advancing this stuff who you might need to ask yourself oh can i trust this person when he tweets stuff out if he's willing to put forth such obviously wrong things does this person have my best interest in mind i agree i was fooled uh i originally thought it was a coke bag and then I realized it's a tissue.

So I can see how people do that. Matt Seaman. He says, Tim, just wondering if I can get a birthday shout out at the ballpark celebrating the big three. Oh, shout out, brother. Happy birthday. I am jealous. I would love to be chilling at a ballgame right now. You ever you see those things where they have the cup and then the straw goes, there's like a little dish that goes on top of the cup and it's got like nachos and like a hot dog on it. That's so great.

That's so American. We've been talking about doing a ball, going to a big ball game for a long time and we just. Ball games are so much fun. We gotta do it. I hope so. We gotta do it. It doesn't matter really which teams are playing. Like it'd be cool to go see like, you see, considering the Nationals, no one ever goes to see the Nationals.

Who cares? So you can go see the Dodgers when they come through to play the Nationals or the Red Sox or the Yankees when they come through to play the Nationals. I think it'd be great. We've been talking about trying to do a big thing with everybody for a while, but we should never get around to it because we're so busy all the time. I work mornings and nights, so how am I supposed to go to a baseball game during the week? Can't do it.

I'm not a big baseball fan, but I've been to a few games, and it's all about chilling in the stands with the boys, getting drunk, casually watching. I'm not even watching the show. Just messing with your boys. Oh, someone hit a home run. Oh, my God. Until you're stuffed.

You know, getting chilled, chilling with the boys in the stands, drinking, sipping brews. Nothing better. All right. Soapy Anonymous says, check out the boys in the stands, drinking, sipping brews. Nothing better. All right. Soapy Anonymous says, check out the Boonies HQ and its Discord. That's boonieshq.com. It's a skateboarding branch of Timcast. We're getting the Discord fixed and events are happening.

Boonies is growing. So Boonies is a separate company, so it's a different membership program, a different Discord and all that stuff. But, you know, I got to be honest. Skateboarding may be an Olympic sport. They're expecting billions to be invested in it. But there's no young people. So we do board sales.

And here's the secret to skateboard sales. Skateboards have always been art pieces on the wall. So the boards that sell the best are the ones that people can buy to hang on the wall. They buy it one time, they never buy it again. You're not going to make a designer graphic with some crazy stuff and then get one person to buy 50 versions of it. It happens, but it's super rare. So for us, we're trying to do the skate company. And every day, we're just like, gentlemen, there's only 40 million Gen Alpha. Who is going to be skateboarding? We are going to have to get around 40% of Gen Alpha to skate to replace the existing skateboard market. Good luck.

That's because of how few people are. And then Gen Beta is going to shift, not because of climate change, but because they're not going to be able to manufacture video games, antiseptics, ammunition. So they're stocking up on these things right now because population collapse means it is going to get expensive or just non-existent. Like, bro, I don't even know what's in these monitors in front of me or how they're made. I have a general idea. These are, I believe these are, what, LEDs?

The only, if trends continue, the only hope is that there's actual automation, like actual humanoid robots that are, you know, you can have, like, AI teach you how to can have like ai yo think about how sad that's going to be you know maybe that's a good you know i say this all the time we got to get a producer to help us make these short films because i got i got you know the short film idea i got right now is the last human and it's just all these ai machines watching one guy who's dying and he gives a he gives a thumbs up as it like plugs his brain to

the vr for one last time because where we're going is yeah sure great we're going to automate all this production but there's no people like people people is life you know what i mean like there's no people what are we doing and so what in a hundred years the population of earth is seven million and they're largely isolated from each other, living in virtual reality. And then 100 years from then, the population of Earth is 3,000, and it's a highly mechanized automated robot planet. The robots are colonizing other things, and the last remaining humans are just like, plug me in, baby. You know what's happening, though? Third world rules don't have that problem.

People in the third world, they have plenty of kids. But they're still dramatically down. Like even in Africa, it's like it used to be 12. Like 40 years ago, now it's like three. I did not know that. Yeah. So it is true that their population is still growing relative to everybody else. Still declining, though.

Who knows? Maybe what ends up happening, maybe the Tesla robot doing the dances. Maybe the answer to Fermi's paradox is that any sufficiently advanced species, the wealthiest will go into behavioral sync, destroy themselves. And then the lesser developed, um, parts of that species will just lose all technology and then revert back to, you know, natural States. The great filter is much lower than we think. Well, it's not, you know. The great filter is an extinction event. Yeah, but we wouldn't be able to get past to the first level even because we won't be able to get off the planet because of the population

crash. Right. The filter is not so much that humans go extinct, but that wealthy humans stop reproducing or wealthy advanced elements of the species engage in behavioral sync. Yeah. So it's actually not an issue of physical destruction, like we nuke ourselves or something, but psychological destruction. Yeah. Wow. Well, we better fix our mindset. Start having babies.

All the Redger fans are thinking about Mouse Utopia right now. Mouse Utopia always comes back. Mouse Utopia. Yeah. You know that book, Mouse, that the left is always raging about? No. It's where the cat is always raging about? No. It's where the cat is Hitler and then the mice are Jews or whatever. Oh, man.

Jesus. You've never seen that in the U.S.? And I feel like that's anti-Semitic to compare Jews to mice, frankly. Rats. Rats. Even worse. And this is from the left? Yeah, let me see if...

Nope, we don't want that. Are you surprised? I mean, kind of. I mean, I kind of i mean i gotta be explicit about it i gotta be honest like i don't know anything about the book i don't want to uh but yeah it is rats and yeah here you go and are they made to look like them okay well they do have loud long snouts there um what are the ratings like the ratings yeah what are people saying i i think like the left oh this is i think it's made by a jew art spiegelman uh they could get away with that they can get away with it all right see what we got barry n mcgroan says tim i truly believe white people don't hate blacks

and black people don't hate whites the one thing that both races hate is the system that pits them against each other what What say you? I don't think it's as simple as to say yes or no. I think there are racist people and there are not racist people. It doesn't matter what race you are. So some people see the system and don't want to fight. Some people want to fight. But I'd imagine if we took like one person of each race and then like babies and then drop them in like a biodome where they had no contact with the outside world they wouldn't be racist of course not because there's no people to be racist too there's only one guy who's asian it's just that's just jim you know i think there's a lot of racial tension in this country and it would be dishonest to tell you otherwise i mean i'd wish for it to be

different and i wish no people were bigoted towards each other but i feel like that's just denying the kind of the facts of our oh here's one barry and mcgrowan ground barry mcgrowan says tim if white people were so racist then why did ob Obama get elected twice? He cheated. Does that count as an answer? I don't think he cheated. I'm kidding. There could still be racism despite having elected a black president. I don't know.

Of course there is. I'll say this. I actually think the U.S. is one of the least racist countries on earth. That can be true, too. Those things can be true at the same time. I think what is actually happening is because we care so much about racism, like I just went to Japan, they don't care about racism because they're all Japanese, right? They're racist, but they don't actually exhibit racist tendencies. They're not interacting with people who are not Japanese.

They're racist towards people who aren't there though. The Japanese are very racist. Yeah, sure. Like my brother, I went with my brother and he was sitting next to a Japanese person on train, and he saw the Japanese person send a racist meme of a black person to their friend. It was kind of funny. And in America, because we care so much about not having racism, that any time it shows up at all, we talk about it a lot. But yeah, I think some of this is just social media distortion. It's honestly not that bad.

And there's work to do, but I think we don't need to hyperbolize everything and act like we're worse off than we used to be. I would say as a black person, this is definitely the best time to be black. So I think within living memory, there was segregation. I think it ended with the civil rights act of 1964.

So again, like facts on the ground, there is some racial tension within our country. I got to stop you there. Not that we can't get past that. Segregation did not end with the Civil Rights Act, and there still is segregation. So the important thing to understand is we've codified against it, but it still happens. So blockbusting and redlining were happening into the 80s. So that was the intentional actions of market

industries in the housing market to make sure that whites and blacks were segregated, not in the bathrooms geographically. So they were still saying, okay, if we can't keep you out of our business, we'll just move you so far away from the business, you can't show up anyway to create white neighborhoods and black neighborhoods. That still happens today. And I love this story. This woman who worked for, I think she worked for Vice. She was this Latina chick. She was woke as they come.

And she owned a building in New York that was gifted to her by her wealthy parents. And she was talking all about this racism stuff and all the problems. And I asked her, I was like, if a black family moved next door to your building what would you sell and she goes yeah of course and i was like why she goes because the property value is going to go down and i was like the property value is going to go down because people like you desperately try to sell when black people move in she's like look i understand racism is a problem but i'm not going to lose money on my property for for whatever that is and i'm like yeah okay yeah, okay. Like these people are racist. I think it takes time for racial division intention to heal. Brown v. Board of Education was only ruled in 1954.

I guess people would have to be really old to still remember something like that. And the critical race theorists think that it was ruled incorrectly. Yeah. But the fact of the matter is the way that we treat racism in the United States, racism is the worst thing imaginable. Murder is worse than racism.

Like rape is worse than racism. Actual physical violence is worse than someone that has a bad opinion. And the way we behave as if racism is like the worst thing, you have to look at it in context and treat it for what it is. It's someone being crappy to someone else. If they're not actually being violent, then you can just be like, all right, well, he's a dick. You know, like that's just the way. Joe Biden served with segregationists. All right.

I think I've read it. I got to read this one because, again, guys, the reason why I went over the issue of due process so often is because people can't comprehend it. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be mean to anybody, but people literally can't comprehend what due process means. Again, they think it's like a Latin phrase that implies a court trial. Mark Clancy says,

why would there be any reason to give due process? They are not being sentenced to prison. Their property is not being taken. They are just getting a free ticket to the country they are from. Then that is the due process. Okay, stop thinking of due process as one word and think of due as in what does a person do and what is the process by which we determine whether or not they're allowed

to be here the due process would then be like literally saying i walk to the back i walk to the store like people can't comprehend it yeah i i i just i don't know how much further I could simplify it. Can I give a framing? Yeah. Okay. So what's a fair process in a civil case versus a criminal case? Obviously in a criminal case, there's a lot more that has to happen. You need to prove that someone did something beyond reasonable doubt. You go through a lot more legal proceedings for a criminal case. In both civil and criminal cases, we give due process,

but what happens that we call due process is different. So I think what this gentleman is not understanding is that you can give due process to illegal immigrants, and you have to because that's in the Constitution. But the thing that you call due process might be a lot less than you would do if someone, again, cheated on their taxes. Just call it the process a person is due.

Illegal immigrants, what is the process that is due to them? Having an ICE agent review their paperwork and kick him out of the country in two hours. That is the process that is due to an illegal immigrant who was here for less than two years. It's called expedited removal. So when you say, why would there be any reason to give due process? It is a nonsensical statement. Why would there be any reason to literally ask if a person is a non-citizen? Let's put it that way.

The process that is due to an illegal immigrant is for an ICE agent to say, are you a citizen, yes or no, and if not, deport them. Now let's take that, remove the phrase due process, and replace it with its mechanism. And I'll read what a superjet says. Why would there be any reason for an ICE agent to ask a person if they're a citizen or not? They are not being sentenced to prison. Their property is not being taken. They're just getting a free ticket to the country they are from. Why would an ICE agent ask if a person is a citizen or not? That is the process due to an illegal immigrant.

And after that process, which is due, is delivered, they put them on a plane and send them back to their home country. But people keep thinking the phrase due process means going to court. It does not. And then conservatives go on X and get roped into it by liberals into inadvertently arguing to give illegal immigrants trials.

Here we go. C'est la vie. Ridiculous. And that's the actual discussion we should be having, which is what is sufficient due process in this case, not whether we should be assigning due process. It's much simpler. And that's the discussion that both sides should be having,

but they're not. Based African says, I know the story was from yesterday, but I don't think bringing in the African refugees was a good idea. There's a pause on accepting refugees and making an exception for white Africans is terrible optics,

even if it proved Dems are racist. However, Donald Trump signed an executive order in January to pause refugee resettlement. However, within a week or two, signed another executive order saying exceptions will be made for South Africans. And in the initial order, he did say there were always going to be exceptions. The initial order on refugee resettlement said largely we're going to stop refugee resettlement, except in certain circumstances. Then, like two weeks later, he said, here's one of those circumstances, white Afrikaners because of what's going on. So more importantly, a judge stayed those orders and there is currently no

pause on accepting refugees. That's the important distinction. Trump wants it to be. There is not. I think what Trump is doing is basically like hey we're going to freeze refugees a judge said no you're not and then Trump said okay bring in the white people I think that's I think that was the play he made it's fascinating how worked up people are getting over literally 50 South Africans I wonder where we were I think you know they're 59 59 it's just it's really telling how worked up they're getting. 20 million unvetted random people or 59? Who cares?

59 South Africans. We don't need more POSs like Serge in this country, I guess. Well, because it's a proxy for the concern that Trump is a white supremacist. No, this Serge guy. That's the actual concern. I'm not saying it's a valid concern. With his long hair. That's where it's actually coming from.

I thought he was a woman this morning with this long hair. They're bringing this transgender ideology into our country uh-oh elad cristo bro uh brun says journalist and rock star discussing women who do you think got exposed to more women prowling what repeat that question who journalist and rock star discussing women who do you think got exposed to more women prowling? Oh, I mean, I don't think Phil would use his status as a rock star. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Women prowling. Oh, women prowling on them?

Phil, you're a good looking guy, but you know. Doesn't matter when you're on stage. That's so true. That's a man who knows. Iggy Pop is ugly as sin, that man. You're putting me up against stiff competition with Phil. So maybe next time he goes to a show, he could sound part of the band. There we go.

I got your back. So I'll tell you a story. When I was a teenager, I was hanging out at the skate park. And one of the kids who skated there, we were all teenagers, was like, he's like, hey, I invited this girl to come skate with us. And so he's like, just be cool, like you know i want to date her and everything so then i went to the other kids there's like four or five of them and i was like okay here's what we're gonna do literally no matter what trick he does scream and cheer and act like it's the craziest trick

you've ever seen and so dude drops it in the mini ramp and he does something that's not really good at all and we're going and then she's standing there and then I'm looking at the dude and I'm like dude he's so good this is crazy he's the rock star those are real friends

they understand and he had no idea what was going on he was just like yeah guys thank you did he get the girl? I don't know I was just like, yeah, guys, thank you. Did he get the girl? I don't know. As a teenager, they probably went and got a milkshake or something. He was in the suburbs of Chicago. Nothing untoward.

But they probably went and got a Coke and a Checkers burger. End the story with the wholesome end. There you go. There we go. I mean, I literally think it was a wholesome end. Suburb kids weren't doing drugs and doing crazy stuff. They were scared to hold hands. course he married her i mean i haven't seen the guy in 30 years so man that's crazy not not 30 years 20 something years 25 years

how old am i wow don't think about it i don't it's all fair means paradox but not tim's age yep nope all right let's grab some more based africans back he says affirmative action was I don't. Solve Fermi's paradox, but not Tim's age. Yep, nope. All right, let's grab some more. Based to Africans back, he says, affirmative action was good, but it should have had a sunset clause because it's inherently racist. Same for a potential federal abortion law. If it's inherently racist, why have it to begin with? All the laws should have sunsets. All of them.

That I'm open to. Every single one. Even murder. You had the same idea yeah if it's racist if you're acknowledging that it's racist why i have it to begin with i think i think i think even murder should have a sunset like literally every 10 years they should have to go over the bill and then reassess the amount of time they're giving people where they're like what are the general rules and the codification of how murder is handled in this country? And when you don't sunset laws, you have Trump able to go back to 1798 for the Aliens Act or whatever to deport people. So, yeah.

Yes, but murder is older than that. So when people are like, it's an old law, and I'm like, there's older laws. Yeah. And to this based African, I think he's making some good comments. So good job, based African. If something is racist, we should not do it at all, not do it for a certain amount of time and then sunset it. So instead, let's figure out not racist ways to help everyone in this country. To steelman the argument, though, is there any obligation that the country has to

so-called right the wrongs that it's perpetuated against black people specifically? No, I think the government has a responsibility to make an equal environment where everyone has an opportunity to succeed, not right past wrongs. So for example, let's say black people came out of slavery and for whatever reason, we're immediately making as much money as white people. And just like, it's almost as if slavery hadn't happened. you wouldn't then go say, well, you still have to give black people something because of something that happened in the past. So the actual issue is that people are not giving equal opportunities to thrive in present day.

And there's a variety of ways you can solve it. It doesn't have to be on a racial basis. It can be on a socioeconomic basis. I actually think that reparations need to be paid by the South and the slaves who are freed to the families of people whose ancestors died fighting to free them. I don't actually think that, but you can see the argument. If you're going to argue that we deserve something from your government, the counter is going to be, okay, well, like my great,great-grandfather, you know, his brothers, they died to free your ancestors. So what do I get for that? Just like, you know, my ancestor was left as a widow with no one and was starving and nearly died.

Is there any – like this country went through hell. Million people – how many people died? Like one point something million? In the Civil War? In the Civil War? I think more. I don't know. Like2 was it let's get the number oh no around 700,000 deaths I believe for all sides yeah what percentage of the population

was that between 600 and 1 million total deaths at the time I don't know, but a lot. And I mean... So, look, I don't mean that literally. I just think that we're not going to move forward as a country if everyone's trying to argue why they're owed something from 200 years ago. That's ridiculous. Like, you know, I have an ancestor... I believe my ancestry is on both sides of the Civil War.

I'm not going to make an argument... 2.5%. 2.5%. I'm not going to make an argument. 2.5%. 2.5%. I'm not going to make an argument that, oh, I just found out that I have an ancestor who was a captain in the American Revolution. That means everybody should have to pay me because, you know, immigrants who come here should have to pay descendants who fought the revolution. Like, it's ridiculous.

I don't even know the guy's name. You know, it kind of sucks. It'd be great if we did know our family histories because it's a powerful thing but I don't know, I'm not going to complain about it imagine if I went back to the Korean side of my family and started going after Japan Japan, you gotta pay come on

we're moving paths and trying to build relationships and ties and trade we're going to go to the Uncensored show right now my friends and I've got a special treat for you of a project I've been working on that can only be displayed on the members-only Uncensored portion of this show. So go to rumble.com slash timcastirl. And you're going to need to become a premium member.

Use promo code TIM10. You'll get $10 off your annual membership. And I think it drops it down to like $80 for the year, but you could also, you also get access to Steven Crowder. You get access to Dr. Disrespect and all of Rumble's premium offerings. You get our green room podcast as well. We are pretty, we've got two feature length documentaries and we've got two more coming out soon. I wish we could work faster, but we're going as fast as we can to produce all the stuff for you guys. But I've got a special treat for you on this uncensored show you're going to love. Smash the like button.

Share the show with everyone you know. Kaizen, do you want to shout anything out? Thanks for having me, first of all. So shout out to you. This is my first time in a studio with a political podcast, so it's been a lot of fun. Really? Right on. So thanks for having me, guys. It's been really, really great.

And yeah, if you want to connect with me, I'm on socials. That's Kaizen everywhere. I'm also a life coach. So if you want to be mentored by me, sharpen your thinking, sharpen your communication, I can do that too for you. So find me. Kaizen, it's been a pleasure speaking to you. You're a very sharp guy, and I'm sure you're going to have a lot of success in the space because you're so eloquent. My name's Allad Eliyahu. I'm a White House correspondent and journalist here at TimCast. I hope you guys enjoyed the show. Follow me on all the social media at Allad Eliyahu. I'm a White House correspondent and journalist here at TimCast. I hope you guys enjoyed the show. Follow me on all the social

media at Allad Aliahu. Phil? I am Phil that remains on Twix. I'm Phil that remains official on Instagram. The band is All That Remains. Our new record called Anti-Fragile dropped in January on the 31st. You can check it out on YouTube, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Spotify, Pandora, and Deezer. Don't forget the left lane is

for crime. We will see you all over at Rumble.com slash Timcast IRL for a special little treat. Thanks for hanging out. you